FS#38848 - [pam] /usr/lib/security/pam_userdb.so missing
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by André (NomAnor) - Sunday, 09 February 2014, 16:28 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Saturday, 15 February 2014, 09:58 GMT
Opened by André (NomAnor) - Sunday, 09 February 2014, 16:28 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Saturday, 15 February 2014, 09:58 GMT
|
Details
Just installed pam 1.1.8-3 and
/usr/lib/security/pam_userdb.so is missing.
When I downgrade to 1.1.8-2 everything is ok. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Saturday, 15 February 2014, 09:58 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Saturday, 15 February 2014, 09:58 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
[#1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/pam&id=f560943ae14a5a7c50756777802addc8bac67b94
who came up with this? why was it removed? why do you remove features and on the same minor version? are you bored, nothing better to do?
I really don't get this way of thinking.
Political move?
Don't fix what isn't broken!
please re-add this asap
It is necessary for vsftpd.
Please define necessary. As this is a PAM module, you can use *any* authentication method of your choosing. That's sort of the point of PAM. pam_pwdfile is fine replacement for pam_userdb.
sorry for the wording but I was really annoyed at stuff breaking on a minor upgrade, but the version remaining the same.
reboot server, ftp login not working. good that there's only 1 user, imagine 200 users that need to be transferred over to pam_pwdfile.
unneccessary work.
- the wiki entry should be updated to reflect the changes.
where can I read up on this decision and the reasoning behind bdb being stripped out of the system?
thanks
edit:
PAM unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/security/pam_pwdfile.so): /usr/lib/security/pam_pwdfile.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pam_pwdfile/
pam_pwdfile is not an "official" package (aka untrusted) and requires additional steps, like either configuring makepkg, downloading PKGBUILD, verifying, installing base-devel, compiling, installing via pacman -U or installing yaourt or a similar aur pm.
that's why I believe bdb should remain in this package.
the administrative overhead is greater without bdb support in pam than with it.
But it will be hard to do becouse many other packages depend on the db (samba, perl, exim, postfix.. etc).
In this case, what is the sense to remove the dependency in PAM?